About those Tags!

Junior on the boat after capture - see any evidence whatsoever of a broken jaw?

Looks like Michael Domeier has run into a brick wall.

ABC News 7's Chief Investigative Reporter Dan Noyes has authored an atrocious piece where far from doing his job and investigating, he has instead decided to spearhead a witch hunt aimed at blocking the renewal of Domeier's research permit at the Farallones; and some dude has started a petition with the same aim.

No I'm not gonna post the links.
Noyes has seen it fit to provide a forum to the usual strident suspects all the way to the token Sesselfurzer who is once again invited to bloviate about Shark behavior about which he has no clue whatsoever. This is nothing but a prime example of the usual sensationalist one-sided mainstream rubbish, only this time about a Shark-centric subject.
The petition, although well intentioned, is marred by the ramblings of yet another self appointed expert who continues to harp on about the non existent tumor and the jaw that was broken during capture - the latter against unequivocal photographic evidence to the contrary, see on top.

BUT - whereas I totally despise the means, I do concur with the aim.
Domeier's research goals are highly interesting and would provide for vital data that PAT tags are simply not designed to collect. But as outlined in his draft application, the procedures (and the SPOT tags, see below) remain highly invasive and it is my belief that both the protocols and the hardware need to be reformed and re-engineered before being allowed to be deployed in a Marine Sanctuary featuring some of the planet's most restrictive Shark interaction protocols.
But more of that below.

As to Domeier. what can I say.
Did he bring this upon himself? Yes he did, nobody dragged him, kicking and screaming, in front of the cameras. Does he deserve what is happening to him now? Certainly not!
My prediction is that the continued shit storm will lead the GFNMS honchos to refuse the permit.
My advice to Domeier would be to take his losses, leave behind this unholy alliance of hostile media, back-stabbing researchers, inept authorities, moronic experts and screeching activists and look for new worthwhile projects elsewhere.
Some wars are just not worth fighting.

At the same time, however, other questions need to be asked.
Firstly, what has been Maria Brown's role in this fiasco, starting from her original approval of invasive and highly experimental research all the way to her obvious inability to properly deal with the situation once things started to turn for the worse, to her continued lack of leadership now. I say, she should take her hat and leave, or be asked to do so.
That's what accountability is all about.

Secondly, what about the "long term resident researchers".
I'm confident that they are positively gloating. I'm however equally convinced that their status needs to be re-examined, both in terms of their research which makes them equally interact with the animals but which is increasingly becoming irrelevant, outdated and redundant - but also, in terms of whether one should confer exclusive territorial rights to people who have displayed such an extraordinary lack of ethics.
Personally, I would tell them to own up and reform or get lost - but that's me; as a minimum, one should ask them to wait till the PAT tags have popped up and relayed all the data before allowing them to stick any further Sharks.

Anyway, check out this further piece by Noyes.
Yes it's the same rubbish, but it features an interesting picture, see below and the equally interesting statements by another researcher.

Would that by any chance be the same guy who publicly condemned Domeier's research protocols one year earlier?
Remember?

“There is an emphasis on sensation,” he said. “I think of it like ‘King Kong,’ the movie — going out and getting Kong, getting the white shark, in bondage."

Would he now be doing the exact same thing, i.e. hauling large and I would say, terminally pregnant Tiger Sharks out of the water, for TV, maybe even onto the very same wooden platform, and this under the auspices of the very same Chris Fisher who turned Domeier's research project into a joke by boasting (and here!) that he had caught the largest ever Shark blahblahrahrah - and continues to do so now?

Don't remember Fischer?
Here he is, proudly posing with one of his gigantic made-for-TV prop barbed hooks!


Which begs the question, who, exactly is the avid billfish angler and TV outdoor fishing adventurer ( and next Jacque (sic) Cousteau no less!), a self-professed fishing expert, who completely stuffed it up and left the Shark with 3/4 of the prop lodged in his throat?
Yes, you probably guessed who!

But contrary to Domeier who has valiantly played the fall guy by assuming full responsibility, Fisher is of course a media pro, knows how to play the game and has come out of this fiasco completely unscathed. Does this disqualify all hybrid productions as Patric asserts? No, it does only disqualify Fisher - there are heaps of other examples of productions featuring the work of researchers that are simply stellar!
But I'm digressing as usual.

Back to Fisher's new sidekick, did I hear animal care protocol?
Really? As in this stuff that is addressing the well being of lab rats and the like? Gotta see it to believe it! And on top of spouting this obvious baloney, was there really a need for him to mention that Domeier did not have any such protocols and thus infer that Domeier did not care about the health of the Sharks?
Talk about a shining example of gravitas and collegiate solidarity! Which begs the question, did the 187k (yes this is again about pecunia non olet!) come with the requirement to play attack dog for his master?

But back to that protocol.
The fact is that nowadays, everybody, his dog and the dog of his dog is tagging Tiger Sharks without hauling them out of the water, and I spare you the dozens upon dozens of links.
Using a sling to hoist the sharks and a live well on the ship, in which to place them is once again made-for-TV showbiz bullshit which has nothing whatsoever to do with caring for the Shark!
And the purpose of this exercise in animal welfare, or whatever? May it be, to reel in and subdue a (pregnant) Shark in order to drill and bolt some SPOT tag to its dorsal fin?
Honi soit qui mal y pense - but we shall all see, shall we not!
Totally underhanded and hypocritical? You betcha!

But this is not about those researchers, or Fisher.
It is about those satellite tags (please read this paper!) and about the protocols that are required in order to deploy them.
In essence, the researchers have to face several challenges.

• Developing a tag (a transmitter) that collects (and sometimes stores) data and then relays those data to a receiver from where the researchers can download them.
• Attaching the tags to the Sharks.
• Approaching/attracting/catching and/or possibly immobilizing the Sharks in order to attach the tags.

and the short- and long term implications this has on the animals' well being.

The tags

Those satellite tags are essentially produced by only a few companies, among which Wildlife Computers and Microwave Telemetry. Whereas the overall technology for the acoustic tags is well developed and highly reliable, this is not yet the case for the sat tags.

PAT tags try to calculate the position of the animal by using mathematical models that however feature a margin of error that can be very large indeed.
Also, to-date, the requirement that the tag be small coupled with the need to archive the collected data means that the life span of PAT tags is limited to little over one year, something that will conceivably change with the advent of longer lasting power sources etc. Finally, the PAT tags merely reveal a picture of the past as the data are only accessible once the tag pops up and uploads them to the satellite.

The manufacturers have tried to address these issues by developing SPOT tags that last multiples longer and that are able to provide for accurate real-time positions.
Whereas in theory this is clearly the way forward for some species of surface-oriented Sharks, there still remain notorious connectivity issues whereby the tags are not able to adequately uplink to the satellite during the short time frames when the antenna breaches the surface, etc. Plus, there are many Sharks that are not surface oriented and where deploying those SPOT tags will never make any sense at all.

Tag attachment

The above companies are essentially operated by electronic engineers whose principal concern is to develop electronic components that are able to communicate with receivers.
Consequently, both the shape of the tag and the way it is being attached to the Sharks appears very much to be little more than an afterthought. From my observation, the tags are produced in some shape with some attachment and the researchers are then being asked to somehow deploy (= experimentally field test) them and to come back with suggestions for improvement. In essence, electronic engineers are asking biologists for input about a mechanical engineering issue.
Sound like the best way to proceed to you?

All attachments are invasive, albeit to a different degree.
We have once tried to circumnavigate this issue by feeding acoustic tags to the bulls but were penalized by only being able to collect short data sets. The attachments I know of (there may be more) are positioning of the (so far: acoustic) tags inside the body via small incisions that get sewn shut, a procedure that apparently does not unduly cause long term damage to the animal; tag attachment via a ring around the caudal peduncle, so far for acoustic tags only, again something that appears to be non-debilitating as long as those rings don't chafe and are attached for rather short periods of time.

Tethers and anchors for acoustic and PAT tags?
Now, this is more problematic. Depending on the situation but also, the species, there are different anchors that are inserted (i.e. sewn, punched, slammed or shot) into the Sharks' muscle tissue. Bull Shark skin is particularly tough and covered with large dense denticles and we had to deploy the probably most invasive model that consists in a razor-blade-like implement that needs to be slammed in with force. That anchor will remain lodged in the animal forever and even if it does not cause infections, it will continue to be an irritant that will cut into the muscle at every contraction. Other anchors appear less problematic.
Case in point, our Bull Shark Hook - click for detail.

The depicted tether was fouled and finally fell off after two years - but to this day, the Shark still features a discoloration where the anchor continues to irritate the surrounding tissue.
Needless to say that we've stopped all tagging pending the development of a better attachment.

And what about the current SPOT Tags?
In the present configuration: absolutely shocking!
The tag needs to be bolted on, requiring that one catches and immobilizes the Shark, see below. Once secured with multiple bolts, that tag will interfere with the Sharks' growth and lead to permanently warped first dorsal fins especially in juveniles and subadults featuring high growth rates.

Plus, the bolts are supposed to somehow corrode and fall off after a period of 4-6 years.
Chances that anybody has tested that assertion? My gut feeling: those bolts will completely foul and never fall off at all!
But assuming that the bolts will corrode: chances that multiple bolts will corrode and fall off simultaneously? Yes, that would be a big fat Zero, and if so we'll end up with one last bolt holding a flapping tag, with the consequence that the bolt will likely completely shred or even amputate the dorsal fin.
What's Neil gonna say when his Hammerheads will turn up with their spectacular dorsal fin warped, shredded and/or possibly amputated.

One of Neil's Hammerheads carrying a SPOT tag with four bolts - article here.

What is Jimmy gonna tell his clients when Tiger Beach will start to feature maimed Tiger Sharks.
And before anybody starts screeching and launching yet another petition or the like: this is not about individual people and projects - the list obviously goes on and on and on and on!

And then, there is the issue of fouling, one of the major problems plaguing vessel owners around the globe. It's a big issue that is costing billions in incremental expenses for fuel etc - and anybody developing a remedy would likely make billions as a result!
We operate vessels and lemme tell 'ya, anti-fouling that lasts for 4-6 years does not exist - let alone a concoction that would not poison and kill the surrounding living tissue! Chances that after a few years, those tags and the antenna will not be completely overgrown with barnacles and algae, totally interfering with the transmission in the process?
Right.

Approaching and immobilizing the Sharks

Acoustic and PAT tags can be applied on the fly and thus, one can use bows or pole spears when approaching some surface oriented species like Whale Sharks, and other Sharks like GWS' that can be lured to the boats.
But this does not work with the vast majority of species that never come to the surface. Some species can be tagged underwater by using pole spears and spear guns, like we have done with our Bulls. But this is difficult to impossible with shy, fast swimming or deep water species, and it does not work at all with the present generation of SPOT tags that require bolting on.

In all of those cases, the Sharks need to be caught and/or immobilized.
Capture involves setting nets and long lines that however carry the risk of the Sharks asphyxiating if they are not regularly inspected; and using rod and reel, or hand lines like e.g. Guy has chosen to do.
Check out this picture of our Mrs. Jaws.


The Ocean is full of baited hooks and this is but one particularly brutal example of many, many Sharks we encounter that have contracted permanent disfigurement when escaping death by fishermen. Here are two more such examples and yes, Junior who obviously takes baited hooks may have experienced the same fate - but clearly not when he was hooked by Fisher's men!
Where I'm going with this is that hooking Sharks inherently carries the risk of permanent injury.

And what about immobilizing the Shark?
It appears that small species can indeed be hauled aboard without any permanent injury. Bigger animals cannot and/or should not, and the widely adapted procedure is to secure them alongside preferably a small skiff with catch poles, ropes, slings or cradles, and to then perform whatever needs performing whilst the Sharks are partially submerged and whilst the skiff is motoring ahead very gently in order to aerate their gills.
Apparently, this has also been done with GWs.

Of countless examples - Mahmood SPOT-tagging a Tiger, article here.

But although this is certainly much less invasive than trying to haul them aboard, trying to restrain large and immensely powerful struggling Sharks remains dangerous both for the animals but also for the researchers.

Still think that these issues are confined to Domeier alone?
Well, if so, think again - those tags are currently being deployed by everybody everywhere!
Hypocritical animal care protocol anybody, see above?

Long story short?
SPOT tagging is brutally invasive and needs to be halted pending the development of better attachments and procedures.
PAT tags are much less invasive but plagued by technical limitations restricting the scope of their deployment.

Solutions?

Let's look at the ideal specs for a data collecting implement.

• The tags should be as small as possible; collect a maximum of data (position, temperature, depth, possibly data about neighboring equally tagged animals, etc), ideally at short time intervals; have a maximum operating longevity; be able to reliably transmit (ideally, in real time) the data to a receiver; possibly feature a data storage capacity for periods when the connection is being interrupted. Clearly, this is an issue for the electronics engineers and the solutions will improve with improvements in communications technology, battery longevity, miniaturization of components, etc.


• They should be constructed of ideal materials (e.g. to minimize fouling through novel surface coatings and shapes; to withstand crushing when at depth, etc) and be ideally shaped (e.g. to minimize drag, to best conform to the shape of the animal, etc). This is a mechanical engineering issue.


• The attachments should be non invasive and the tags should detach without any residue. Could the bulk of the tag (and thus, the bulk of the fouling) be detached from the animal and held by a tether, like in the case of the PAT tags? Could the tether be attached by a completely non invasive method like a dab of fast setting adhesive that would degrade within a determined period of time? Or what about a non chafing (!), elastic sleeve around the caudal peduncle? A small clamp around the posterior edge of the first dorsal fin that is secured by small barbs but also adhesive? Once again, this is an issue for mechanical engineers, and a matter of developing the adequate materials that would degrade and detach in time.

Or, how about a radical re-think?
What if the receiver would be following the transmitter? As in a autonomous self-propelling robot that would stay at the surface (or at times, even operate underwater) and pick up the transmissions of what would essentially be an improved acoustic tag, and relay them to a satellite? With the advantage that the tag could even be positioned inside the Shark and that the bulk of the electronics would be on the ROV that could also be located, serviced, even re-deployed from a vessel, including the possibility of downloading large data sets that would exceed the bandwidth of satellite transmissions?

Am I completely out of my mind?
Maybe not so much, check out this article about research on Penguins! Yes the hardware looks shocking (let's start a petition!) - but could it be improved and adapted to Sharks?

Prohibitively expensive? How about pooling the resources (yes I know I know...)?

But of course those are just a few suggestions by a non-engineer.
How about spending some real time and money on R&D. How about a contest among, say, MIT students with a grand prize of 10,000 bucks - think that you would not be literally inundated with possible solutions?
I've said it before: I simply refuse to believe that given the necessary attention including adequate funding but also adequate testing (!), the technical issues cannot be addressed - but until then, tagging needs to be halted, especially when it comes to those SPOT tags!

Leaves the issue of approaching the Shark.
Some Sharks can be tagged on the fly either from the surface or by divers and free divers, and the hardware should reflect that application.
Others however will always require some form of catching and immobilizing and no, I don't have a completely satisfactory answer to the issue that any such procedure will carry the inherent risk of injury. My gut is that I would not do it myself but instead rely on experienced fishermen whilst always striving to develop better and less invasive protocols.
But from what I know, that's precisely what all respectable researchers do already - including Domeier who however had the misfortune of stumbling across Fisher and his inept crew.

Ethical considerations?

Remains the issue of why the fuss.
Does it really matter whether we brutally manhandle, maim and even kill a couple of Sharks whilst engaging in research aimed at collecting data about their life history that could lead to better management and conservation measures?
After all, we would only be affecting a few individual animals that are irrelevant to the survival of the whole of the population and of the species, both of which are in continuous flux anyway - the more as the real damage to stocks is being perpetrated by the fishermen and indirectly, by the many other issues affecting the well being of oceanic habitats!
Right?

Wrong!
This is not about conservation - this is about who we are.
Do I really need to elaborate on the point that we who strive to protect Sharks must always respect the animals and always be on the lookout for the best possible alternatives - and this inclusive of any researcher who wants to maintain his credibility?

Does that mean that I'm anti-science and anti progress?
No, far from it, how could I. Just two months ago, I have personally lethally sampled a small Filefish because it is probably a new species. So far, Taxonomy requires the collecting (= killing and pickling) of at least one holotype (and ideally, several more paratypes) and lacking any alternatives, that's what I've decided to do.

Equally, I do not all all suggest that Sharks are special and that they should be treated differently than any other Fishes or animals in general, whether they be higher or lower as pointed out somewhere in this fascinating thread. Ethically speaking, a life is a life.
Invasive research is being conducted everywhere on a multitude of animals - but Sharks is what I'm interested in, and that's why I'm addressing Shark research in particular.

Let there be no doubt that tagging has been one of the major recent positive developments in Shark research.
The results are simply stellar (with the caveat that I remain concerned about publishing tracks that could lead the fishermen to the hot spots) and have given us fascinating and highly important insights into the life history of Sharks that other techniques could simply not have provided. Let there also be no doubt that I am intimately convinced that the vast majority of Shark researchers (yes including Domeier!) care deeply about the animals and are always trying to improve on their protocols in order to minimize any negative side effects.

But having said this, I equally advocate a temporary halt.
The technology has obvious flaws that can, and should be fixed before proceeding further.
Also and contrary to Heupel and Simpfendorfer who seem to advocate that research should remain in the ivory tower and disregard public opinion, there is an urgent need for outreach. The good news is that Shark research and conservation are thankfully becoming increasingly popular, with the positive result that this has certainly led to better pro-Shark policies and to a wider base for funding. But, this has also led to the necessity of open (and robust!) public debate, especially in view of the ever increasing number of strident, and often totally ignorant Shark activists - see the onslaught that has befallen Domeier.
One cannot profit from the benefits of the former without addressing the inconvenience of the latter!

Anyway, just my two cents - as always highly subjective!
Sorry for the lengthy rant - but as so often, the post has taken on a life of its own, and I just had to get it off my chest!

Comments policy.
Please, do not attempt to post comments that further defame Michael Domeier and his research. This has already been done ad nauseam (meaning that I am totally nauseated) on other posts on this blog and on this and this post on SFS, and anything even remotely parroting those allegations will be deleted.
Vinaka!

Playa Bulls - challenging!

Source.

Who would have thought!
Conservation is always complicated - but Shark conservation being linked to the willingness to learn to speak English?

Check out this video about the Bull Sharks of Playa del Carmen!
Dunno what has really happened since that post in January - only that more Bulls have been killed just around the corner.
Eli?



And incidentally, here's another example of how frustratingly complicated and in this example, totally counter intuitive (!) conservation can be!

BUT!
The fight goes on!

Rather awesome!

There really are some crazy dudes out there!
Story here.

Shark Free Marinas PSAs!

Excellent stuff!
We've obviously been big fans of the SFMI since day one, and Fiji continues to be one of the initiative's principal supporters.

Ever since Guy Harvey and the Humane Society have decided to support the concept, Luke has been assisted by a growing number of Board members, Celebrities and yes, certainly not leastly, by the influx of much needed funds that are being spent on promotional and support materials but also, on excellent PSAs.

Here are two of the most recent ones.
The first contains the endorsements by actor Kelly Perine, singer/songwriter Aria Johnson , celebrity photographer Nigel Barker, actress Lisa Edelstein, guitar legend Slash, the Dr Guy Harvey, American football legend Steve Bartkowski and the SFMI's Director Luke Tipple.
The second features the unequaled Guy and specifically targets the marinas in Florida - and I sure hope that there will be more targeting the other coastal states where pro-Shark activities have so far been dismal!
And, let's not forget this one! :)

Enjoy!

Only Bycatch?

Again, excuse my French!

New South Wales - Action, please!

Upset about the pic?
Here are several more!

From the website of the Game Fishing Association Australia, no less!

All line fishing methods that use hooks have the potential to harm grey nurse sharks.
Grey nurse sharks will take baited hooks and can also become hooked if they take a fish being played on line fishing gear regardless of whether bait or artificial lures have been used. However, the use of wire trace for bottom fishing and setlines has been identified as the most harmful fishing method to grey nurse sharks. Many sharks can be seen with fishing gear, such as hooks, caught in their jaws and line trailing from their mouth and gills. Autopsies of grey nurse sharks have found that hooks can become embedded in the throat and stomach, and can puncture the shark’s large liver. This can lead to bacterial infection, septicaemia (blood poisoning) and ultimately death.

From the paper.

Grey nurse sharks clearly interact with static baits deployed close to their aggregations.
All bait types were taken at all times of day, and grey nurse sharks were the only bait-takers after dusk. Even the least taken bait types resulted in frequent (10%) shark interactions, demonstrating that bottom-set baits pose a high interaction risk when deployed around grey nurse shark aggregations.

From the website of the NSW Government (!).

Areas that are known to be used for feeding and breeding are considered important for the survival of a threatened species. Some of these areas may be declared as critical habitat, such as the grey nurse shark areas along the NSW coast.

Hook and line fishing in areas important for survival has negative impacts on many threatened native species including Grey nurse shark (endangered).

Hook and line fishing can impact upon threatened species by causing damage to the mouth of fishes, which may impact on feeding behaviour and feeding success. The effects of fish hooks can be more serious over a longer time if retained in the mouth, throat and stomach of fishes and sharks, and ultimately can lead to death. Even though it is illegal to take a threatened species, these species are still being harmed by hook and line fishing, as evidenced by grey nurse sharks and black cod seen with hooks in their mouths.

While listing all hook and line fishing throughout NSW waters as a KTP is impractical and unwarranted, particular sites, such as known aggregation sites, spawning areas, important juvenile habitats and feeding areas, are of critical importance for the survival of threatened species. Some of these areas, but not all, are listed as critical habitat areas under NSW Fisheries legislation.
Any activity that could kill or adversely affect threatened fish species in these critical areas should be considered a threatening process and managed accordingly.

The new Fisheries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson could not care less.
In clear contravention of the precautionary principle and pending some re-assessment, or whatever, she is revoking the new fishing ban around Fish Rock and Green Island. I've blogged about it here, and here are more details on the Grey Nurse Blog.

Here is Ms Hodgkinson's e-mail along with that of her boss the PM.
If you live in NSW and are thus a member of their constituency, you may want to write and tell them what you think about this utter fiasco, or you can also sign up to this campaign by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

I know too little about Ozzie politics to give any advice to people from outside of NSW or Australia.
Best drop a line to Peter Hitchins and staff of the Southwest Rock Dive Center, or contact the FishRock Dive Center and ask them about the best way to proceed.

Vinaka Vakalevu!

Still on Target!

Yes these are all Bull Sharks - click for detail!

Quick-quick: rather ridiculous dive today!

Stellar viz, ripping current on the first dive, at least 60 Bulls, probably more.
Which of course bodes well for June!

A Glimmer of Hope?

Another fantastic collage by Vitaly - using a pic of Predator by Lill!

Found this message in my in-box this morning.

My marine conservation sensei is of course absolutely correct.
Although some highly depleted but thankfully, largely local as opposed to global Fish populations may have accumulated extinction debt and may be pushed over the brink by the double whammy of Global Warming and Ocean Acidification, we are still to unequivocally document the extinction of a single marine Fish - meaning that there is hope that most of the Fishes could indeed survive in some MPAs (Assumption 3, Solution A).
But my sensei is heavily invested genetically and has no choice but to be optimistic about the future prospects of his grandchildren. And, the next 100 years is a mighty long time - just think of all that has happened, and of the havoc we have wreaked since 1911!

Anyway, here is the message, unabridged.
Wise words indeed - but that's why he is my sensei!

Your blog of 2011/05 was a bit of a wail of despair and your facts per se are hard to refute, but one might paint many different pictures from the same pigments of fact.

Yes, consumerism is the dirty secret of modern social, economic and political stability.
Like our relatives the chimpanzee, we humans are driven to compete for the biologically important things in life, like breeding rights with Alphas of the opposite gender, by amassing resources. Glittering status things, Ferraris, and Rolex watches do work. Societies with strong economies that foster consumerism out-compete other societies, and governments that allow people the freedom to compete for and amass resources can even get away with political repression, as in China. However consumerism that draws lightly upon the accumulated resources of Earth or does not overtax the compensatory mechanisms that maintain the equilibrium of the biosphere may be compatible with maintaining a healthy natural world.
Clean energy technology may be the sort of straw that an optimist might grasp here.

The big problem, as you pointed out, is population.
Yes there are presently too many people worldwide and the inexorable spread of consumerism will only increase the strain on natural systems. However, the demographic transition, which affects all modern first world societies, is an unexpected miracle with long term effects impossible to ignore. More and more countries are moving from zero population growth to negative growth, as in Japan and southern European countries. Even many third world countries are experiencing a dramatic reduction in the number of children per family, and education and empowerment of females in patriarchal societies promises continuing demographic changes. The inertia of population growth will certainly cause grave strain on natural systems throughout this century, but the Long Run may not be bleak if we can get through this bottleneck. Nature has its own ways of controlling overpopulation as well, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse could saddle up yet again for another winnowing. Perhaps they have even started their ride in Africa now.

It is probably an unrealistic goal to protect all habitats or to maintain large populations of species like sharks everywhere.
The future of, say, Triaenodon populations in places like Cocos Island may be bleak. It may be more effective to allocate resources to protect species and key habitats, with the hope that species that can “ark” through the next 100 years and then repopulate the spaces a more enlightened humanity sets aside for them. Education does change attitudes in the long run. I am encouraged that large areas of marine environment have recently been protected. Enforcement is always a problem, but some vast areas like the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are effectively protected by the might of the US government, others like the southern Line Islands by remoteness. Species is such areas, including Triaenodon, should get through the bottleneck OK.

The SRMR is the sort of project that can play a vital role in protecting species and habitats.
Even though you seem to despair for the future, interpretation is everything and according to the guardedly optimistic picture I have painted from facts and trends, the work you and others are doing may yet provide our descendents the resources necessary to help restore balance in the natural world.

Still the Best!

When I first watched this video, I was moved to tears.

Since that time many years ago, there has been a veritable deluge of productions highlighting the magical underwater life of Cocos and the plight of Sharks - and yet, this remains the unequaled masterpiece.
Avi is one of the owners of the Undersea Hunter franchise and he has spent countless hours with his venerable Draeger waiting for the perfect moment - and it shows, as does the loving and meticulous editing by Nicola Ghersinich. These are the earlier days of the legendary Mario Arroyo, when we were only killing 15 million Sharks and when the schools of Hammerheads were already depleted but still incredibly impressive.
Much of it gone now, likely forever.

Be amazed and deeply moved.

Shark Conservation - Posters or Condoms?

I’ve been planning to blog about this for a while now.
Thing is, I have been delaying it because despite of now countless conversations with conservationists, I have no answers and the more I think about it, the more I get depressed – but this is eminently important and we all need to give it some heavy thought.
So without further ado – and yes this is gonna be long!

Lemme start with a few examples first.

Australia.
In New South Wales, a politician is rolling back years of efforts to halt the decline in the number of critically endangered Grey Nurse Sharks. She is the new Fisheries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson, a recreational fisherman who is apparently doing it to keep her pre-election promise to the Fishers and Shooters Party. This is happening in the face of clear evidence that any fishing will harm the sharks even when they are not being targeted but also, in the face of the fact that like other Grey Nurse aggregation sites, South West Rocks is not only a critical habitat but also, a Shark diving hot spot supporting a thriving eco-tourism industry of dive ops and ancillary businesses, and thus contributing substantially to the local economy.
The fishermen couldn’t care less of course – MPAs always harbor more Fishes and despite of the beneficial (incidentally, to them!) spillover effects, they will always try and get their hand directly on the resource, and screw the future and the long term sustainability of their own activity!

The most frustrating aspect?
Here, we got all the elements for successful Shark conservation: irrefutable science, sustainable income from a thriving ecotourism industry and a wealthy country that could afford to put the necessary measures into place. How can we then go to poor countries where people do not fish for fun, but in order to survive, and tell them to protect Sharks if we fail so miserably at home!

Chagos.
Great achievement by the Pew and others in having the islands declared the largest MPA in the Indian Ocean and quite possibly, in the world!
But, Mauritius wants Great Britain to give back the islands and is apparently suing, and the Chagossians want to be allowed to go back, incidentally straight into having to face issues of sea level rise (?).
I believe this to be largely posturing in order to get (even more) compensation – but what will happen to the MPA if they succeed?

Palau.
Once again, great achievement by the always too modest Pew - and yes, by Dermot, too!
And what about the other ghost writers, supporters, petitioners, congratulators etc? Yes, well, hmmm…. – but I’m digressing as always.
Thing is, apart from the ongoing issue of enforcement, what is going to happen down the line? The accolades will cease, President Toribiong’s term will expire, new people will be voted into parliament. Let’s never forget that Shark protection in Palau came to be at the very last minute, when a proposal to allow Shark fishing was defeated and turned into something positive in 2009 – read these blog posts starting with the last one!
What safeguards are there in Palau to prevent that the decision to establish the sanctuary will not be overturned in the future – and incidentally, that this will not happen to any of the recent Shark sanctuaries the Pew has helped to establish?

Fiji?
The SRMR and our other initiatives are a great conservation success and the direct benefits in terms of cash flow, employment etc to the resource owners but also, the indirect benefits to the country and the community at large will always be much higher than the proceeds from fishing. I thus remain hopeful that this specific venture has all the elements for being long-term sustainable as it will always be in the very interest of everybody involved to keep it alive.
But, there are always obscure village politics at play, and possibly, issues of corruption, and there is thus always the possibility that somebody could be taking irrational decisions one day in the future. And, there is always a risk of a Shark bite and of the ensuing backlash all the way to closing us down and thus destroying the source of the cash flow which is a vital component in this specific venture.

And here are some observations.

The countries where people have a lot of children are the poor countries.
Within the communities, the families with a lot of children are the poor families.
Starting with the US Bible Belt, the ignorants are the top breeders: having a lot of children is not only correlated to, and creates poverty, it is highly correlated to lack of education, lack of empowerment of women and yes, often religious bigotry.
And yet, it appears that no one of those in charge is willing, or capable of addressing the issue - especially in those countries that are most affected! Right now, we are approx 7 billion - and the population keeps increasing, once again especially in those countries that can afford it the least.
Have a good, hard look at this link!

And then, there is this.
Remember the images from China 20 years ago? Everybody was wearing an ugly uniform and everybody was riding a bicycle. Now, there are millions of cars and everybody who can afford it owns and peruses a mountain of stuff – and those who cannot are desperately aspiring to attain that status. And not only in China – everywhere on the planet, every single human being is trying to attain a better life which for the majority of people is expressed in being able to increase their ecological footprint, this in terms of owning more stuff and consuming more resources - but also, with the inevitable consequence that they will be creating more pollution in the process.
In general terms, this is currently being defined as Economic Growth - and even should we be able to once stabilize or even reverse population growth, the trend to increase the individual ecological footprints will very likely remain largely unchanged.
Or are we, the rich, going to try and convince the poor that they should please remain poor for our sake, and that of the environment? Or, will we the rich ever be willing to down-scale our comfort for the sake of the common good?

Total heresy – correct?
Indeed, if I look at what is happening, the big thing nowadays seems to be Poverty Alleviation as defined by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Yes Goal number 7 mentions the need for ecological sustainability – but how will that ever be achieved if all the other goals aim at improving people’s health and life expectancy, and at having them accumulate more stuff and peruse more resources – all of which inevitably translates into increasing their individual ecological footprints?
The fact is that if everybody had the ecological footprint of a North American, it would consume the resources of not one, but several Planet Earths already!
I’m all for having people attain a better life – but unless somebody starts talking publicly and unequivocally about the problem of population growth and the absolute need not only not to increase, but to drastically shrink those numbers, we are truly and inescapably doomed - and much of this planet along with us!

No I’m not talking about extreme measures à la China.
I’m talking about conducting a robust public conversation aimed at achieving a consensus about the absolute necessity to have fewer babies – and about the absolute necessity to consume fewer resources, and this by everybody everywhere!
Ultimately, this is not a choice – it is the only way forward!

These are the twin 800-Pound conservation Gorillas.
I’ve mentioned them here and added that they are not my fight – but for a while now, I’ve started to wonder.

The fact is that from everything I see, the Conservation movement just doesn’t want to know.
Is it the consequence of the all-pervasive and alas, seemingly inevitable Political Correctness of the big NGOs? Whatever the reasons, the fact is that instead of addressing the causes, we continue to limit our efforts to trying to fight the consequences.

But is this smart and above all, is it long term sustainable?
Right now, we’re the proverbial Dutch boy trying to plug the leak in the dike with his finger – but new leaks keep springing up, there’s only so many heroic little boys, and the resources (Assumption 6) for fixing the dam are limited. With that in mind, should we not instead focus on alleviating the water pressure behind the dike?
Yes I know, total Anathema!

Believe it or not, the above was merely an introduction! :)
What I really want to talk about is this post by the always brilliant CJA Bradshaw, and this article it references. They deal with human ( = population- ) growth and with economic growth ( = largely, under the present terms, the growth of ecological footprints) and I ask you to also read the links and the comments, some of which are brilliant.

Each time environmentalists rally to defend an endangered habitat, and finally win the battle to designate it as a park “forever,” as Nature Conservancy puts it, the economic growth machine turns to surrounding lands and exploits them ever more intensively, causing more species loss than ever before, putting even more lands under threat. For each acre of land that comes under protection, two acres are developed, and 40% of all species lie outside of parks. Nature Conservancy Canada may indeed have “saved” – at least for now – two million acres [my addendum: that's 809371 hectares], but many more millions have been ruined. And the ruin continues, until, once more, on a dozen other fronts, development comes knocking at the door of a forest, or a marsh or a valley that many hold sacred. Once again, environmentalists, fresh from an earlier conflict, drop everything to rally its defence, and once again, if they are lucky, yet another section of land is declared off-limits to logging, mining and exploration.
They are like a fire brigade that never rests, running about, exhausted, trying to extinguish one brush fire after another, year after year, decade after decade, winning battles but losing the war.

Despite occasional setbacks, the growth machine continues more furiously, and finally, even lands which had been set aside “forever” come under pressure.
As development gets closer, the protected land becomes more valuable, and more costly to protect. Then government, under the duress of energy and resource shortages and the dire need for royalties and revenue, caves in to allow industry a foothold, then a chunk, then another. Yosemite Park, Hamber Provincial Park, Steve Irwin Park [my addendum - even the mention of this man is an insult to biodiversity conservation]… the list goes on.

There is no durable sanctuary from economic growth.
Any park that is made by legislation can be unmade by legislation. Governments change and so do circumstances. But growth continues and natural capital [my addendum: see my post on this term and others] shrinks. And things are not even desperate yet.

Now, compare it to the examples on top.

Solutions?
Alas, as I said, I don’t have the answers – apart from the fact that we cannot continue to pretend that it is not happening.
Me, I need not worry: I won’t personally experience the worst consequences, I’m the last of my gene pool with no intention of procreating, my ecological footprint has shrunk by orders of magnitude and even BAD is a pillar of sustainability, this largely thanks to Mangroves for Fiji where we’re about to declare ourselves completely carbon neutral – and we’re already mulling the next big project!

With that in mind, will I get involved and detracted from Shark conservation? Hell, no - it is already plenty difficult, time consuming and often frustrating as it is!
Makes me sometimes wonder why I bother! :)

But you other guys who are genetically invested and are trying to hand down something to the future generations - even if it may be little more than just a modicum of HOPE?

Think about it.
Then, go out and DO something!

IMEC - WTF?

WOW!

A. It shall be deemed a World Extinction Event Crime to willfully, intentionally and knowingly engage in an action that is accepted by the general scientific community to have serious adverse atmospheric conditions or known to promote conditions that would reasonably cause any major collapse of the planet’s breathable atmosphere.
Such actions include the unregulated harvest of Chondrichthyans, which include Elasmobranchs, and Chimaeras, and the continued harvesting of Cetaceans, aside from Aboriginal subsistence whaling.

This must be the Nadir of Shark conservation.
The most worrying aspect: I very much fear that whoever (somebody has whispered: one Erik Brush?) has posted this crap may be dead serious!

Behold the IMEC!



Can it get any worse: Hell, Yes!
This is the DIRECT consequence of the moronic sound bites proffered by the sharkitarians - and yes, if not countered, this may well turn out to merely be a temporary stage!
We could become like this - exactly like Mark just said!

See why I continue to rant?

Undercurrent on Sharks!

Vanessa Richardson has redeemed herself - somewhat!

In my last post dealing with her, I wrote
And what about Undercurrent? Looking forward to reading Part number two - and very much hoping that Ms Richardson will start talking about the real problem that is besieging Sharks, i.e the global fishery targeting their fins! Not that I believe she will after this total fiasco. But then, as they say, hope springs eternal!
And lo!, and totally surprisingly - she HAS!

You can read part two of her piece here.
I had to laugh out loud when she mentioned George Collier - if that isn't the perfect synthesis of Sesselfurzerdom! But other than that, it is rather well researched and well put. And of course I just love the quotables by that Shark conservationist in Fiji! :)
Enjoy!

PS!:

Almadraba!

Are those Bluefin Tuna?

What a joke - one picture truly IS worth a thousand words!

I found the one on top here, and you can read more about what's going on in this short article.
The big commercial purse seiners are fishing the Tuna to extinction, and one of the symptoms is the fact that the big Fish are gone and that the fishermen are now killing mere minnows, barely sexually mature animals that are thus removed from the breeding stock long before having made any meaningful contribution.

This is how Bluefin Tuna look like!

And this is a Spanish Almadraba, or Mattanza in Sicily, in the old days.
Just look at the size of those beasts!



Shocked by the blood?
No, this is not The Cove for the Bluefin Tuna.
Apart from being a millenarian tradition, this is fully sustainable - and if this and other artisanal fisheries were the only harvesting techniques, and if they could finally stop the poachers, and if those subsidies were to be finally cut and if they would finally shut down those horrible Tuna farms, the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna would have a real chance of rebounding, even now at this very late stage.
Yes, I know I know - but I remain hopeful.

Of course, this is merely one example.
Everywhere, we are emptying the Ocean, catching ever smaller Fish and fishing down the food web. Here's an excellent PSA by Shifting Baselines depicting the result - and no, that's a 2 foot Blue, not a Mako.



Anyway, food for thought.
Back to the Sharks!

Whoz this Girl?

Popped by today on the first dive.

Skinny, at most 3m to the tip of the tail, slightly shredded first dorsal, distinctive markings above mouth - and very inquisitive! Did the whole profile from 30m to 4m.
Click for detail.

Sam - anybody you know?


PS as Sam correctly remarks in the comments, this is none other than BRAT!
Thanks mate, I knew I can count on you!

PS2 and here are Sam's pics - stellar as always!
Definitely the same Shark!

Mark - interesting Times indeed!

As so often, Patric is being way too karmic.
Yes some consider him the devil incarnate, this probably alongside yours truly; but the truth is that in countless behind-the-scenes conversations following this first blog post 3 years ago (and check out this - and it's only a fraction!), I've come to know him to be passionate, brilliantly analytical and lateral thinking - and yes, at times refreshingly machiavellian, too! But also, and often to my utter frustration, I've seen him plagued by political correctness and fatally committed to his personal tenets of karmic decency and compassion.
Did I hear some incredulous snickering by his perceived victims ?
And yet it is true - trust me, it could have been much, much worse! :)

Case in point: his latest blog post.
It touches upon the ignominious slander campaign against Mark Thorpe and the general framework within which these things are regularly happening.

Well, I'm not so inclined.
I am European and political correctness and beating around the bushes is just not the way I tick - nor however is it to stab people in the back and even less so, to do so anonymously! Did I hear, and how about your alias? Right... if you haven't noticed, lemme give you a hint: this is the blog of Beqa Adventure Divers - and if you have been living under a Shark blogging rock and feel the urge to unmask me, or whatever, listen to the podcast in the previous post!

But I'm digressing as usual.
Believe it or (probably!) not, I have the utmost respect and am profoundly grateful for the thousands of people who have thankfully embraced the cause of Shark conservation over the last few years. But at the same time, I remain profoundly disturbed by what I consider to be the lunatic whacko fringe and the utter rubbish the continue to spew. This I hope is but a small minority, but being both fanatical and vocal, they continue to poison the discourse and to completely undermine our credibility and as a consequence, the success of our efforts. Be it the self promoting perceived messiahs or the sesselfurzende self promoting experts, they are simply toxic and a never ending source of utter frustration and concern.

And what about those pathetic people who have infiltrated the Shark-related social media and discussion groups.
I have decided from the outset never to be part of any of those but despite of my best efforts, I still get regularly copied on some of the worst ejaculations - and lemme tell 'ya, I cannot even begin to tell you how utterly small and outright disgusting I find all of it! When it comes to the males, the common denominator seems to be anonymity, a big macho mouth and smallness, the latter probably in every sense of the word. About the harpies, lemme say this: the French are obsessed with women and have consequently coined the appropriate terminus technicus, as far as I know uniquely so.
The attribute is mal baisée - and I trust that at this point, the French readers are smiling and the Americans are simply outraged!

Think I'm digressing as always?
No, far from it! This is now the second time that I see good people being slandered and ostracized in this same underhanded way. The first was Alex the Sharkman who was ignominiously demoted from the discussion group he worked hard to build. Thankfully, he continues to be fully committed to the cause, albeit in a much less public way - which considering his personal experience is probably a good thing, both for the Sharks but above all, for him!

And now, it appears, it's the turn of Mark.
Its all about to get very interesting has indeed proven to be prophetic, and this very much in the proverbial Chinese sense! This is once again a good man with a big heart for Sharks who took it onto himself to provide several platforms for Shark lovers after the CITES vote. He did so with no money whatsoever to spare, by investing scarce and hard earned funds and above all, countless man hours into his undertaking. Yes iDiveSharks and the app were designed to become a commercial venture, which is perfectly legitimate. But I can assure you that they have never even remotely come close to breaking even, especially considering the man hours invested - and yet and despite of the hardship and misgivings, the man perseveres and continues to donate his time, passion and energy to keeping it running.

The conservation group?
Simply disgusting! Not surprisingly, I've heard very little indeed. But what I read and the few snippets I've picked up through the usual sad and slanderous pipeline of Chinese whispers just wanna make me puke - and no, I absolutely do not want to either hear the pathetic truth in all its grimy details, nor will I allow anybody to post them on this blog or on our our Facebook page! Every story has two sides and I'm sure this one does, too - but I know the man and will follow my instinct, as I always do. He is a warrior and faced with the hazing, sycophancy, gossip and backstabbing, he did the right thing, put a lid on it and walked away.
Good on him.

Long story short?
Patric is right: we have lost a leader.
He is one of many and no, I'm not gonna bother to list them for the newcomers. It's a hemorrhage of brainpower and passion, and the movement shows it. Let there be never a doubt that tens of thousands of Facebook likes are merely the consequence of excellent networking, investments of money and IT skills - as Mark has painfully experienced at his own cost (!), they mean nothing and save no Sharks unless good committed people physically step up and get things done. Mark is one of them and I hope that like in the case of Alex, he will continue to be there for the Sharks he loves.

And the Facebook page and coalition, or whatever?
It will undoubtedly re-surface under a new name. Let's see how many genuine likes it will attract now that it is deprived of Mark's money and of his technical skills. Anyway, it is completely irrelevant. It will be one of dozens and like so many, achieve nothing for Sharks. But it will provide for some form of solace and sense of self importance and direction to some people, which in itself is not a bad thing - that is, provided that those folks don't ever succeed in owning the global conversation!
Indeed Mark, Sharks DO risk becoming the next Dolphin!

Thankfully, right now, it matters not.
The movement is progressing in leaps and bounds and achieving heaps - despite of the clamoring!
Fingers crossed that it remains that way!

Could it be that I have made myself a few new friends - again?
Take a wild guess as to whether I care! :)

Podcast!

Another stellar pic by Tatiana - click for detail!

Had a quick chat with Radio New Zealand International.
If you don't mind enduring the irritating accent, the podcasts are here: the Shark piece is at 22:51 on Tagata o te Moana and on Dateline Pacific, at 4:14.
I have no idea about how these things work, so better listen now before they load new programs. You will also hear excellent quotables by Matt Rand, Director, Global Shark Conservation at the Pew and by Angelo the Saipan blogger.

Great job by Moera Tuilaepa.
RNZI is broadcast and much loved all across the SOPAC - so here's to some of the right people tuning in!

Enjoy!

PS I may have succeeded in embedding the file of Dateline Pacific below - fingers crossed it works! As I said, interviews start at 4:14.



Transcript here.

New Wallpaper Pics!

Click for detail!

Behold!

The pic above is by Andrey Narchuk.
He's a friend of Sasha who convinced him to try out the Fiji Shark Dive. This, I believe is from day 2 when he was put face-to-face with some really big Sharks for the very first time in his life. Very impressive pic - but then, Andrej belongs to the crème de la crème of the Russian UW photo scene where he alternates awards with Sasha, and I fully expect more equally stellar pics to pop up on his blog now that he has returned home.

And how about this!

Click for detail!

Yes this is again Tatiana aka Sharky!
She was here last week and contributes one further pic to this year's wallpaper challenge. We continue to be well on track towards my predicted one hundred by June and on a good day with good viz, we believe that we're currently identifying up to 70 Bulls - simply ridiculous and no, we do not really know whether it's 65 0r 75, we're at the point of where we have to totally guesstimate!
You-know-who, better start polishing that 80 megapixel gizmo! :)

But back to Tatiana.
You just must check out her latest portfolio on iDiveSharks - this from a mere 3 Shark diving days, and by a lady who tells me that she has just picked up photography 6 months ago!
Two of my favorite ones below!

Click for detail!

Impressed?
Me, too!
So, what are you waiting for!

Shark Feeding Rubbish from Down Under!

Here we go again - and yes, I am livid!
I was having a real nice, mellow day - and now this.
This is what you get when moronic reporters, or whatever, interview moronic Shark experts!

No, I'm not gonna bother to post a full exposé.
I've blogged ad nauseam about feeding Sharks and I would be totally wasting my time trying to formulate yet another novel response to the old tired moronic allegations.

So this time, let's do something different.
Please re-read this.
Then, re-read this.

Then, have a look at this shit.



See?
The token Sesselfurzer (no, not a PhD!) has released a few more farts.
And then we got ourselves a veritable diving underwater medecine expert, Dr Carl Edmunds (Navy School of Underwater Medicine and South Pacific Underwater Medical Society) - who has been personally diving in the SOPAC no less! Wow, talk about impeccable credentials - after all, a PhD is a PhD, and who gives a shit about the totally irrelevant detail of the discipline it was obtained in! Tell 'ya what: how about an even more impressive veritable diving PhD (!) in quantum physics (!) next time!
And how about Mr. Hoy himself asserting that keeping (and feeding!) Sharks in an aquarium is a hell of a lot better for the Sharks! Compared to? Obviously, free Sharks being offered the occasional snack!
Just Great!

I say, show me the F@$%ing Evidence!!!
Are there more Shark attacks on Flinder's Reef?
Have there been less Shark attacks after the Florida ban?
Right!

Notabene: the above obviously with the exception of Pensacola where the life guards will henceforth be able to avail themselves of the unparalleled (!) spectacular eco-behavioral insights of the world's ultimate Shark expert, ladykiller (for German groupies only - alas!) and I read (!), owner of Sharkwater, Erich Ritter!
Talk about a prudent and at the same time, highly effective and outright visionary investment of taxpayer money - especially now in the recession!
How cool is that!

But!
Did I hear
There were reports of increased activity around the beaches, including reports of Great Whites circling fishing boats waiting for food?
Indeed! How many fishing boats are dragging in struggling Fish that send around irresistible vibrations all across the ocean? How many fishermen standing on the shoreline which last time I looked, includes the beaches drag in struggling Fish that send around irresistible vibrations all across the ocean? How many spear fishermen operate close to shore and shoot Fish whose death throes send around irresistible vibrations all across the ocean? And, how many of those folks clean their catches, throw the scraps into the ocean and create irresistible chum trails in the process - and this always in the same place, like the entrances and inside of the harbors and marinas? Remember Walker's Cay? Hell, in Hawaii they even conduct Tiger Shark viewing dives in one of those places!
Compared to how many Shark diving operators?

So who, exactly, is conditioning Sharks?
Let's ban all fishing and spear fishing!
I wish!

Have a nice day!

PS: thank you Patric! Rottweiler huh... :)
PS2: Wolfgang on the Sesselfurzer in 2007!

Eric Clua on Shark Feeding!

Bull Shark traffic in the Arena at 30m - click for detail!

Don't worry - no rant this time!

Actually, it's quite the contrary!
I must say, I'm increasingly impressed by the quality of people who have decided to come pay us a visit as of late. Maybe it's the incessant ranting on this blog or maybe it's even the disclaimer at the bottom of our home page - but the trend is unequivocal: the activists and adrenaline hunters are thankfully going somewhere else and being replaced by truly remarkable personalities who combine a passion for Sharks with solid knowledge and a refreshingly pragmatic and solution-oriented approach to Shark conservation.

Case in point, Erich Clua.
He popped in the other day and what ensued, apart from the inevitable bonding of Shark aficionados and some stellar pictures, see on top, was a remarkable discussion about the pros and cons of baited Shark diving. Eric is of course none other than the lead author of the Lemon feeding paper and French on top of that, and I was bracing myself for an explosion of Gallic outrage about the irreverence of my comments. But I must really say, Eric was nothing but constructive and genuinely interested in feedback - and yes, it may have helped that I know French Polynesian Shark diving politics in general and the Moorea Lemon Shark dive in particular, and that I was able to converse in passable French! :)

But I'm digressing as usual.
The fact is that Eric is a passionate Shark diver with a big heart for Shark conservation, and that he conducts fantastic Shark research in New Caledonia and in French Polynesia - in brief, the exact opposite of those bloviating Sesselfurzer! Despite being professionally active in another field, he is also a big honcho at the SPC and thus in an ideal position for furthering and disseminating desperately needed modern Shark conservation concepts (= forget the quotas: don't kill them at all!) across the SOPAC.

This is one of the many reasons for why I like his article.
It's included in the SPC's Fisheries Newsletter and has thus been read by policymakers across the Pacific. In case anybody should have forgotten, it is them and not the clamoring conservationists who will ultimately draft, or not draft any legislation protecting the marine resources we are so passionate about, and it is thus them we need to convince!
My personal wish: that it may finally spawn some reflection within the arcane halls of the SPTO and of SPREP whose representatives have so far displayed an equally irritating and ignorant aversion for our industry, this despite of the obvious benefits for both tourism and marine conservation.

Any caveats? Most certainly! :)
They center around the assertion that feeding quickly leads to dependence when food is easily available, as well as to sharks’ becoming accustomed to the presence of humans. Humans are soon associated with food and otherwise wary, distant sharks no longer hesitate in approaching humans and even entering into close contact with them. This significantly heightens the risk of accidental biting (e.g. a shark biting a diver’s limb that it mistakes for food) or intentional biting out of domination or territorial instincts.
Re-read this and you will know where I'm coming from on this topic: there is ZERO evidence that Sharks become dependent on handouts; and whereas I fully concur that the risk of bites (mind you: during the feed!) does indeed increase, I miss the unequivocal statement that the remedy is to implement better procedures, not to prohibit or demonize the feeding per se.

Examples?
The food is then released, and a hectic swirl ensues equals dumping which can result in feeding frenzies. We advocate always keeping control of the bait (e.g. by hand feeding) or only releasing the bait once the clients have left. Equally, we advocate single user sites where the animals are being conditioned to an always uniform and thus predictable routine. French Polynesian Shark feeding sites are however generally free-for-alls where different operators try to one-up their competitors in macho showmanship, which is a notorious problem in Moorea where the Lemons have even been lured to the surface by snorkeling boats.
In brief: if Moorea wants to continue enjoying the benefits of a thriving Shark tourism industry, somebody there has to put a stop to the shenanigans. Eric being a client of those dive ops cannot quite say it that openly - but I am quite certain that he concurs!

And what about the increased dependency and aggression?
We do not at all have the same experience. Our data clearly show that there is no increased residency in our Bulls, as despite of the ever increasing numbers, single individual animals only pop by for short periods of time, weeks at best, but spend the majority of their life elsewhere, likely roaming for food; also, they leave during the mating season and we are thus not witnessing their possibly heightened aggression like what is happening with those male Lemons.
But as always, granted, those are completely different Sharks, at a completely different site, with completely different procedures!

Long story short?
I really have to commend Eric. The article is interesting, very much in favor of Shark conservation and the Shark diving industry and refreshingly nuanced where it touches upon the more controversial aspects.
Very well done indeed!

As he writes in a recent message: Nous jouons dans la même équipe!

Junior - the Video!

FACE IT! - Fabulous pic by Marty (yes this is a link!).

Bingo!

David has finally obtained the video.
Here it is.



As I said, I'm done with this.
The video fully confirms my suspicions that this has been an ignominious smear campaign against Michael Domeier.
It also very much confirms my opinion about the many self congratulatory so-called Shark experts who saw it fit to engage in gratuitous pseudo-scientific pseudo-forensic speculation, sniping and finger pointing in the comments section of David's first post. Remember their names as they will undoubtedly be completely unfazed and continue to rant, speculate and bloviate about other Shark related matters, this with equally zero knowledge let alone credibility.

I'm not gonna repeat my final take on this fiasco.
I fully stand by what I wrote there, including the need for holding the perpetrators, enablers and accomplices accountable. But fear not, Greg Barron is already very much starting to ask the right questions.

Just this.
Congratulations to Michael Domeier who finds himself fully vindicated in the matter of whether he caused permanent damage to the Shark.
Huge kudos to David for having doggedly persevered in this matter.

Comments policy.
This is David's blog post, and I invite everybody to post their comments there and not here. Comments parroting what has already been posted on the various Junior threads here or on Southern Fried Science will be deleted.

PS excellent op ed by Patric here.
Totally agree, albeit with one small exception: if the right people stay on the ball, there can be positive consequences. The various people who played a role in this need to be held accountable and if necessary, removed. Also, I continue to maintain that present tagging procedures (by close to all researchers everywhere) are generally too invasive and that the gizmos can, and need to be fixed. I know that changes are already being implemented - and if this utter fiasco has helped trigger some reflection and a new trend, then it will ultimately result in a positive outcome both for the animals and for the researchers studying them.
Fingers crossed!

FijiLive Part Two!

Scarface by Jean-Marie of Shark Revolution - click for detail.

I am indebted to Tevita Vuibau.
After establishing the narrative about the need to preserve Sharks in part one, he has published an in-depth look into possible local solutions and very graciously given me the opportunity to add a few more sound bites.

For readers of this blog, what I say is nothing new.
Where useful and welcome, we must assist Government in enacting pro-Shark legislation; but once that has been achieved, we must equally assist Government in enforcing the new laws, especially in an emerging economy like Fiji. That equals assistance in education, awareness and capacity building - but above all, monetary assistance so that the authorities that are tasked with the enforcement are able to field all the required resources, from personnel and boats (and fuel for the boats!) all the way to computers, software and functioning internet connections. In view of the nature of such an undertaking, this will have to be a continued commitment that may well last for several years.

But I'm of course repeating myself.
Vinaka Tevita, and once again kudos for a job well done!

The real Deal - Fiji's Shark Diving Pioneers!

Check out the Video.
It was shot by the then manager of Aquatrek, Kiley Skipper at the end of 2002 and features our unequaled feeders Rusi and Manasa handing some juicy tidbits to what could very possibly be a much younger Scarface on Shark Reef - with no gloves (let alone steel ones) but certainly, with the same big smiles and the same pride in what they do!

Enjoy!